Were God's words purified seven times?

[franklinmonroe]

No, you have entered an ideal that causes one to conclude that only the poor and needy are kept by the LORD due to the fatc the rich and powerful are NOT mentioned. I suppose you're one fo those who believe all the rich go to hell.

Sal, I don't know how you misunderstood what I wrote. I did not conclude that the LORD keeps the "poor and needy" simply because the "rich and powerful" are not mentioned. To the contrary, I was logically demonstrating that the verse doesn't exclude other groups. From this passage alone, with this interpretation, it can only be concluded that the "poor and needy" will be kept by Him. I am not certain that in the totallity of scriptures teaches us that there are only two (or four, depending upon how they are counted) groups of people.

I thought it was very unfair of you "to suppose" anything about me, especially to assume that I would take such an unscriptural position... I do not think that all the rich go to Hell (although Jesus did say that it would be be difficult for the rich to go to Heaven).

So now you're telling us all that doctrine cannot be determined by the Scripture available unless it meets your approval?

Again, I cannot fathom how you can make this statement. I wrote nothing of the kind. I would prefer to have a sensible discussion with you, but you seem to leap to ridiculous conclusions about my posts and resort to unfounded accusations about me personally.

No, you haven't taught anyone anything except that you are dishonest in your example. No one would think otherwise, but your love would be expressed for only your son in a specific case of singularity...
If you had used a conjunction such as "and" or "but" in your example one could come to a conclusion.

Perhaps I failed in some way to perfectly present my example; nonetheless, you judge my alleged shortcomings as being "dishonest". There is big difference between simply making a mistake, and being intentially unethical.

I must admit I don't know how using a conjuction improves the example, but I'll give it a try: "I will always love my son and daughters", does not logically imply that I must conversely not love my wife, my mother, my sister, Salamander, and all the other people in the world. Better?

Do you really think the LORD would omit any group of people under the oppressive acts of others to be kept by Him? You seem to write things into the Scripture that just aren't there.

No, I don't think that the LORD will omit any group of people, and that is the very point I made. You so often completely miss the point I am communicating that it is clear that you must be reading my message with prejudice. Again, I would like to carry on a conversation with you but unless you try harder to really understand my posts, we're not going to be able to advance the discussion. If you do not wish to debate with me that is your option. Either way, I will still love you brother.

 

[Keith M]

Sal, I don't know how you misunderstood what I wrote.

It's called deliberate misrepresentation. Many KJVO folks resort to this when they cannot support their myth. It is a very frequent occurrence here on BB, not only with Salamander but with others as well.

I thought it was very unfair of you "to suppose" anything about me, especially to assume that I would take such an unscriptural position...

Deliberate misrepresentation once again.

Again, I cannot fathom how you can make this statement. I wrote nothing of the kind. I would prefer to have a sensible discussion with you, but you seem to leap to ridiculous conclusions about my posts and resort to unfounded accusations about me personally.

There's more of that deliberate misrepresentation.

Perhaps I failed in some way to perfectly present my example; nonetheless, you judge my alleged shortcomings as being "dishonest". There is big difference between simply making a mistake, and being intentially unethical.

The dishonesty is in deliberate misrepresentation.

No, I don't think that the LORD will omit any group of people, and that is the very point I made. You so often completely miss the point I am communicating that it is clear that you must be reading my message with prejudice.

Oh, he understands alright. It's that deliberate misrepresentation thing again. Salamander and others have been deliberately misrepresenting what others say for a long time now. It is an accepted practice of theirs to try to focus the conversation away from what they cannot scripturally or logically support. So they use the old bait-and-switch technique. Salamander is an intelligent person who is just caught up in the myth of onlyism. Most people caught up in the KJVO myth are intelligent people who have blinders on - they simply refuse to see the truth when it comes to the myth they support. They are so severely misguided they lose sight of truth and start to accept myth as the truth. It's a sad situation, really.

 

[Keith M]

Sorry, multiple posts.

 

[robycop3]

Uh, Roby, that is Milli Vanilli.

Or maybe it is 'willy nilly'.

Carry on...

You're right...my bad! It was no typo!


The cops got after me for too much carrying on...

 

[Keith M]

Sorry, multiple posts.

 

[Keith M]

Sorry, multiple posts.

 

[robycop3]

Still waiting for Sal to answer my question.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Robocop3: //Still waiting for Sal to answer my question.//

...

HOWDYA DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT PSALM 12:6-7, & ALL OF PSALM 12 DOES NOT POINT TOWARD THE KJV BY THE SLIGHTEST IMPLICATION?

Uh, er, well - can you remind us what special character is
intended by & ?

Here is Psalm 12:5-7 in the original KJV1611 Edition:

Psa 12:5 For the oppression of the poore,
for the sighing of the needy,
now will I arise (saith the Lord,)
I will set him in safetie from him that puffeth at him.
Psa 12:6 The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes:
as siluer tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keepe them, (O Lord,)
thou shalt preserue +them, from this generation for euer.

Margin note:
+Heb, him i, euery one of them

(For those who have not been told how to understand what
the Translator Footnote means, the 'Heb' means there is
a variation here among manuscripts concerning which Hebrew
term goes here. So, of course, there is a variation in
the English term(s) which can be used.)

This Translator Footnote means that there were variant
source language texts available to them. The KJV Translators
chose which they thought was most likely the CORRECT
source text (this process is also known as 'higher criticism').
The presence of this one translator footnote blows
most KJVO theories right out of the water. Why would God
allow variant ancient source language texts to exist
yet only allow one edition (KJV1769 Edition) of one
Translation (KJV)? Why must the English be one and only one
Bible when the Hebrew has multiple Bibles?

Good question, Brother Robocop3.
But the answer is:
God has preserved his Pure Silver written words
in all valid Translations.

 

[Keith M]

Still waiting for Sal to answer my question.

Don't hold your breath, Cranston!

When onlyists are confronted with questions which cannot be answered truthfully while still supporting the KJVO myth, they usually just ignore the questions, hoping they will go away. Maybe that is what Salamander is doing - hoping the questions will go away. At least he didn't come out swinging and calling names like Peter Ruckman would have done!

 

[robycop3]

Ed Edwards & Keith...

I know YOU gents can quickly and easily answer the question correctly, but no KJVO is gonna thus answer, as the CORRECT answer sullies their KJVO doctrine.
I just wanted to put Sal on the spot & cause him to be forthright one way or another.

And Sal must think that his attempt to steer from the subject will go unnoticed.

 

[Keith M]

Whether the question is ignored completely or whether they try to steer the topic of conversation in another direction, KJVOs simply cannot truthfully answer some questions and still uphold the KJVO myth. Sad...

:tear: :tonofbricks: :laugh:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Closing another thread which has just become another KJVO debate.